Rittenhouse

Rittenhouse v. BlendJet, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 11, 20252:23-cv-01906California1,467 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---- 11 GREGORY RITTENHOUSE, and LINDA No. 2:23-cv-1906 WBS DB GAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT RYAN Plaintiffs, PAMPLIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 v. 16 BLENDJET INC., and RYAN PAMPLIN, Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiffs Gregory Rittenhouse and Linda Gage (collectively, “plaintiffs”) brought this action against defendants Ryan Pamplin (“Pamplin”) and BlendJet, Inc. (“BlendJet”), seeking legal and equitable relief for violations of New York General Business Law sections 349-50, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and fraudulent omission under California state law. (See Second Amended Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 132-59 (Docket No. 60).) Pamplin now moves to dismiss all claims against him. (Docket No. 62).)1 The relevant factual and procedural background was summarized in the court’s prior order…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.